I was looking at the POBI colour-coded map and noticed mustard yellow covering northern Cumbria, & decreasing in strength into Northumberland. I then noticed the same colour covering the western tip of Pembrokeshire. I understand that a strong Flemish & Norman presence was known to be in that part of Wales. However, that doesn't easily fit in with Northumberland, unless it's Danish blood found in the Norman invaders?Or is it more likely that the link between Pembrokeshire, Cumbria & Northumberland is due to Brythonic Celts being pushed to the extremities of England & Wales? Does anyone know what the POBI people suggest the mustard yellow stands for?Cheers,Bob

I was looking at the POBI colour-coded map and noticed mustard yellow covering northern Cumbria, & decreasing in strength into Northumberland. I then noticed the same colour covering the western tip of Pembrokeshire. I understand that a strong Flemish & Norman presence was known to be in that part of Wales. However, that doesn't easily fit in with Northumberland, unless it's Danish blood found in the Norman invaders?Or is it more likely that the link between Pembrokeshire, Cumbria & Northumberland is due to Brythonic Celts being pushed to the extremities of England & Wales? Does anyone know what the POBI people suggest the mustard yellow stands for?Cheers,Bob

Bob,

If you download the jpg map at the Royal Society website and enlarge it you will see that the clusters in Cumbria and Northumberland are actually mustard yellow squares, whereas the ones in South West Wales are circles.

This probably means they are separate genetic clusters as I can't imagine there is much of a link. To me Cumbria and Northumberland have always been very Norse Viking and Danish.

The Norman/Flemish settlement of Southern Pembrokeshire is more likely represented by the dark blue squares in my opinion.

The color scheme of this big map is not the same as that of the earlier version, posted on the Royal Society website. But there is a lot more detail. But you have to invent your own captions, until they publish it.

I think each symbol on the map represents the mean of the locations of the birthplaces of the sampled person's four grandparents. These are autosomal profiles, of some sort -- not Y-DNA results. (Although the project has Y-DNA, for the male samples, they haven't analyzed it yet.)

I understood at the time of the exhibition that a paper would be submitted for publishing within a month, but not the detailed data. As the month is now up, I hope we get it soon.

"A paper will be submitted for publication in the next month, probably to Nature. All the maps on display at the exhibition will be included in the paper, and additional maps will also be included showing the different levels of clustering analysis."

I came across this interesting update on the POBI project from Razib Khans notes from the recent ASHG conference.

"The guy from the Peopling of the British Isles presented. Two points. First, ~40 percent of the ancestry in England proper seems Anglo-Saxon. Second, their clustering method seemed to find many more ‘micro-populations’ along the “Celtic Fringe” and in Scotland. Why? My hunch is that the Anglo-Saxon expansion wasn’t a diffusion process. Rather, the hordes of Hengist and Horsa probably admixed with the local Brythonic Celtic population on the East Anglian shore, and the rapidly expanded. There is a high probability of some later assimilation (there is some suggestion that Alfred the Great’s line were Brythonic nobles who were absorbed into the Anglo-Saxon power structure), but the emergence of a huge Anglo-Saxon/England proper cluster was very evident in the figure displayed. The main opposition to this thesis I can think of is that isolation-by-distance gene flow is very efficacious in the topography of England, but less so in the more rugged borderlands."

Heber, I have looked at three seperate sources that claim that in England, around 70% of males tested are m269, and 40% of the males positive for m269 are also positive for U106. The three sources however do not state that the remaining 60% is P312, but it could be assumed that that is the case.

Heber, I have looked at three seperate sources that claim that in England, around 70% of males tested are m269, and 40% of the males positive for m269 are also positive for U106. The three sources however do not state that the remaining 60% is P312, but it could be assumed that that is the case.

The 40% number for Anglo Saxon appears to correspond to the numbers the POBI are getting. I am not sure the remaining 60% would correspond to P312. We have to factor in for Mesolithic settlers, Old Welsh, Viking, Brythonic and regional English variations in Cornwall, Devon, Cumbria, Northumberland, Borders, Lancashire, Yorkshire etc. I have no doubt the P312 will be a large component of the remainder perhaps over 30%. In any event lets hope POBI and the Welcome Trust publish the detailed results soon.

"On the genetic map of Britain, Cornish people clustered separately from those from Devon, while the Scottish and Irish tended to share the same DNA markers. Those in South Wales formed a group, while there were separate clusters in the Welsh borders and in Anglesey in North Wales. People in Orkney were different from everyone else.

In England, the majority of the South, South-East and Midlands formed one large group. Cumbria, Northumberland and the Scottish Borders seemed to share a common past. And Lancashire and Yorkshire, despite their rivalry, seemed to be as one genetically...'We might be seeing the result of Anglo-Saxon invasions pushing other peoples down into Cornwall or Wales,' he suggests. 'Or we might be seeing how Britain was recolonised after the ice ages. The West of our islands may have been peopled by movement up the coastal areas from Atlantic-facing Europe, whilst the southeast was influenced by pre-Anglo-Saxon movements from the area that now spans Denmark to Belgium. These patterns may then have been reinforced by the Anglo-Saxon invasions much later.'"

My only concern is that that their reference points for Anglo Saxon vs Celtic are 100% or close to, if modern populations that are supposed to be around 90%+ Celtic or Germanic come out 70-80% then obviously you'd have to adjust the figures either way accordingly. But i doubt they would overlook this.

I've been doing some reading on this subject lately and it seems to me like what probably happened was a few large-ish migrations very early on, the establishment of the early kingdoms we know about followed by a couple of centuries of close contact between these kingdoms and their homelands and then an expansion westward of this this new 'hybrid' population (the red in POBI i suppose).

It's interesting because on one hand i've read a couple of times that quite often many of the existing structures (towns, villages, field systems etc) remain in use for a least a couple of generations while there are some new settlements (making use of the gaps between the others) going on.

However one thing that i did find interesting reading one of Heinrich Harke's articles was that for the first 200-250 years after the beginning of the Anglo-Saxon settlement there is a distinction in weapon-burials. First of all he explains that on average the Anglo-Saxons were around 1 1/2 inches taller than their Romano-British neighbours. Then he goes on to say that those buried with weapons (adult males, not counting children) were on average about 2 inches taller than those buried without, but the results from their examination of tooth hyperplasia in the individuals found no real difference - so the taller ones didn't have a significant nutritional advantage when they were growing up. So that indicates the differences in height are most likely due to genetics (and probably some degree to lifestyle). I think twice he mentions the number of weapon burials, i think it was something like 47% of adult males, and 61% of males. But anyway he suggests that those buried with weapon may have been of mostly or exclusively Anglo-Saxon stock, while those buried without may have been of mixed Anglo-British or purely Romano-British ancestry. Whether or not this is the case it is an interesting thing to consider.

Re the supposed height difference between Anglo-Saxon warriors buried with weapons and British farmers buried without weapons: what should we expect? That is a little like comparing apples to oranges, it seems to me. A better comparison would be to compare the remains of British warriors to those of Anglo-Saxon warriors and British farmers to Anglo-Saxon farmers, etc. In other words, compare like with like. The men who gravitated toward service in a warband would have tended to be the bigger guys anyway. That just makes common sense.

It wouldn't make much sense to proclaim that Americans must be taller than Bulgarians because we've compared a graveyard full of American professional basketball players to one full of average Bulgarians, would it?

It makes about as much sense to decide that Anglo-Saxons were taller than Britons based on a comparison of the remains of Anglo-Saxon warriors to the remains of British farmers.

40% Anglo-Saxon for England sounds about right, given the proportion of U106 and I1 in the English population. The only problem with that is the difficulty in distinguishing Anglo-Saxon y-dna from Danish Viking y-dna.

Re the supposed height difference between Anglo-Saxon warriors buried with weapons and British farmers buried without weapons: what should we expect? That is a little like comparing apples to oranges, it seems to me. A better comparison would be to compare the remains of British warriors to those of Anglo-Saxon warriors and British farmers to Anglo-Saxon farmers, etc. In other words, compare like with like. The men who gravitated toward service in a warband would have tended to be the bigger guys anyway. That just makes common sense.

It wouldn't make much sense to proclaim that Americans must be taller than Bulgarians because we've compared a graveyard full of American professional basketball players to one full of average Bulgarians, would it?

It makes about as much sense to decide that Anglo-Saxons were taller than Britons based on a comparison of the remains of Anglo-Saxon warriors to the remains of British farmers.

40% Anglo-Saxon for England sounds about right, given the proportion of U106 and I1 in the English population. The only problem with that is the difficulty in distinguishing Anglo-Saxon y-dna from Danish Viking y-dna.

I think perhaps i explained it badly.

Well one of the points he made is that weapon burial does not equate to warrior - Especially as there were people buried with weapons who would not have been able to use them let alone become warriors.Of course they were all in Anglo-Saxon cemeteries from what i gather reading it, between the 5th-8th centuries.

Whatever the reasons for the height difference in those buried with/without weapons it is interesting to note that the height difference was not due to a different standard of living ie nutrition/health while growing, so that leaves lifestyle and genetics as the main contenders - And he deals with this also by raising the point that there was a height difference between these two populations, not between the warriors of one and farmers of another - Obviously the Anglo-Saxons weren't all warriors and the Romano-British weren't all farmers. But the major point is that the former came from a culture where burial with weapons was much more usual.

I only mentioned it because the 47% of adult males buried with weapons, and the 61% (I think it was) of males overall buried with weapons was in roughly the right ballpark for this 40% Anglo-Saxon suggested by POBI. I'm not neccesarily insinuating that one causes the other, but they may be related - which is an idea raised in the paper.

Of course it's interesting for other reasons...especially the breakdown of the percentage of certain types of weapons that were buried, the spear being most common with about 80% of burials including at least one. And there was also the peculiarity of less weapons being buried in times of more warfare, and vice versa - although a direct link between less weapons being buried and more being used in times of war can't be proved.

But on a different topic, yeah it wouldn't make much sense to compare a graveyard full of American professional basketball players to one full of average Bulgarians, i agree.

I remember reading Härke's paper when it came out. It's been awhile since I read it, but it struck me then that the comparison was not with like to like. I'll look it at again if you can provide a link.

I remember reading Härke's paper when it came out. It's been awhile since I read it, but it struck me then that the comparison was not with like to like. I'll look it at again if you can provide a link.

Going from memory, as I recall, Härke and the others looked at graves in Anglo-Saxon England, assumed weapon burials contained the bodies of Anglo-Saxons and that weaponless burials probably contained the bodies of British slaves or serfs. Naturally, they found that poorer burials contained men who were, on average, shorter than those in richer burials that contained weapons. Then Härke said this was probably not due to d*i*e*t, but one wonders if serfs and slaves ate as well as their masters.

I need to look at the report again, but it seemed to me reading it at the time that a number of assumptions were made. Härke and the others were looking at burials inside Anglo-Saxon settlements. It seems to me they chalked all the weaponless burials and shorter men up to the Britons, regardless of whether they really knew they were Britons or not. Second, they did NOT compare any Britons buried with weapons elsewhere in Britain to Anglo-Saxons buried with weapons. So, there was no warrior-to-warrior comparison.

It is likely that what they got was a comparison of some of the bodies of poor British serfs and slaves to those of free Anglo-Saxons, many of whom were warriors. Thus the height difference. Even then they weren't really sure who was a Briton and who was not in their analysis of the weaponless burials.

It might be hard to find weapon burials among the Britons, since the Britons were already Christian, for the most part, by the time the pagan Anglo-Saxons arrived. If so, researchers could look at older Celtic burials in Britain and compare them to Anglo-Saxon burials.

Like I said, it's been awhile since I read that paper, but I remember at the time that it didn't quite make sense.

I remember reading Härke's paper when it came out. It's been awhile since I read it, but it struck me then that the comparison was not with like to like. I'll look it at again if you can provide a link.

Going from memory, as I recall, Härke and the others looked at graves in Anglo-Saxon England, assumed weapon burials contained the bodies of Anglo-Saxons and that weaponless burials probably contained the bodies of British slaves or serfs. Naturally, they found that poorer burials contained men who were, on average, shorter than those in richer burials that contained weapons. Then Härke said this was probably not due to d*i*e*t, but one wonders if serfs and slaves ate as well as their masters.

I need to look at the report again, but it seemed to me reading it at the time that a number of assumptions were made. Härke and the others were looking at burials inside Anglo-Saxon settlements. It seems to me they chalked all the weaponless burials and shorter men up to the Britons, regardless of whether they really knew they were Britons or not. Second, they did NOT compare any Britons buried with weapons elsewhere in Britain to Anglo-Saxons buried with weapons. So, there was no warrior-to-warrior comparison.

It is likely that what they got was a comparison of some of the bodies of poor British serfs and slaves to those of free Anglo-Saxons, many of whom were warriors. Thus the height difference. Even then they weren't really sure who was a Briton and who was not in their analysis of the weapon-less burials.

It might be hard to find weapon burials among the Britons, since the Britons were already Christian, for the most part, by the time the pagan Anglo-Saxons arrived. If so, researchers could look at older Celtic burials in Britain and compare them to Anglo-Saxon burials.

Like I said, it's been awhile since I read that paper, but I remember at the time that it didn't quite make sense.

Yeah that is true, i'm not taking it as gospel - Just that it is interesting and perhaps relevant. Although one of the points he makes clear at the start is that at least some of those buried with weapons were not warriors (one example he uses is of someone with spina bifida), although in regards to the children i suppose we couldn't really know, as undoubtedly some of them probably grew up into becoming a warrior, as they did often start training with arms quite early.

I believe the main point he is arguing is that it may be a tradition more to do with culture than occupation, as i remember he says that while a few of the bodies with weapons had evidence of violent injury, many (or even the majority? will have to read through it again) didn't - And of course this was a society in which it seems that most families probably had at least one male member who could wield arms, and so probably owned weapons (most likely just a spear, or spear and shield). A bit like in later times, when these people were needed for the fyrd.

I think the is out of the question on this one too though, at least while they were growing, i believe the point of their examining the teeth for evidence of hypoplasia was to determine if there was a significant difference between the two groups - That could then be attributed to nutrition, but they found no significant difference. So while i don't doubt that successful warriors would have eaten better than your average Joe farmhand, this must have been after late childhood (ie those buried with weapons had no significant nutritional advantage when young to those who didn't).

It is no direct evidence of course, and i do agree with you that assumptions are made - but reading it seems likely that they considered that as a viable explanation given that the height difference and the contrast between those buried with and without weapons that couldn't be explained by nutrition alone, or neccesarily life-style either.

He also mentions that the height difference 'evens out' in the later burials.

But also remember that this is from cemeteries that go up to the conversion period, and given that the Britons seem to have fought battles amongst each other and also against the Anglo-Saxon tribes, it is an assumption on your part to think that British = Farmers, AS = Warriors. Of course there may have been some discrimination between people of different backgrounds.

So it may be that your Anglo-Saxons had higher social standing than the remaining Britons, and were more likely to become warriors and also be buried with a selection of their armoury - the dips in weapon burials during times of much war , and the tradition of weapons or at least weapon blades being re-used for generations goes against the idea that someone was buried with their entire armoury, at least in my opinion. From a practical sense the popularity of spears in burials could be a win-win situation for the families, they are relatively to make and probably make the ideal weapon grave-good.

I doubt anyone would bury their most valuable or most used weapons in a time of war (peace time may be different), in fact they found that the vast majority of the weapons buried had never been used, or only very little - This may just be to a lack of combat, but it could also indicate that some weapons were made specially for burial.

I mean at the end of the day, a weapon is a tool - How many farmers do you know of now that don't have a gun or some other sort of weapon, even in these peaceful times in a Christian society. I'm talking about the UK here but i assume it's even more common in the USA due to gun laws etc. It wouldn't surprise me at all if to own a weapon was the norm in their society, warrior or not. I know that if I was living in those times i'd probably have to be either very poor or an idiot to not have some sort of protection :P.

I agree it would be great to look at the older Celtic burials in this sort of detail too. But you do make my point for me again 'since the Britons were already Christian for the most part' , i don't know how quickly Christianity was displaced in some areas of south-east Britain, but i doubt it went immediately especially if you have Anglo-Saxons living in close proximity to Britons but not driving all of them out, which seems to be the case in the vast majority of areas.

I read it a couple of days ago and will read it through again shortly to double-check on some of these points.

But to me it seems to not make sense to equate a weapon burial to the status/occupation of a warrior, even if it does appear to be logical. Especially as there is an increase in weapon-burials (up to 61% of all adult male burials) during times of little military activity.

I admit it did take me a few read-throughs to fully get the gist of what he is saying, but it makes sense to me - although it is not neccesarily the case that it is true, there could be other factors involved.

Nonetheless i think it is an interesting report and i'm glad it's sparked discussion :).

Well, if Härke was looking at what he thought were British bodies in Anglo-Saxon occupied areas, he wasn't looking at warriors. He was looking at peasants, perhaps serfs or slaves, that is, farmers.

Here's another thing about the alleged height difference that makes me wonder. The Greek geographer Strabo, in his 1st century AD Geography, described the Britons as follows:

Quote from: Strabo

The men of Britain are taller than the Celti, and not so yellow-haired, although their bodies are of looser build. The following is an indication of their size: I myself, in Rome, saw mere lads towering as much as half a foot above the tallest people in the city, although they were bandy-legged and presented no fair lines anywhere else in their figure. Their habits are in part like those of the Celti, but in part more simple and barbaric — so much so that, on account of their inexperience, some of them, although well supplied with milk, make no cheese; and they have no experience in gardening or other agricultural pursuits. And they have powerful chieftains in their country. For the purposes of war they use chariots for the most part, just as some of the Celti do. The forests are their cities; for they fence in a spacious circular enclosure with trees which they have felled, and in that enclosure make huts for themselves and also pen up their cattle — not, however, with the purpose of staying a long time. Their weather is more rainy than snowy; and on the days of clear sky fog prevails so long a time that throughout a whole day the sun is to be seen for only three or four hours round about midday.

If the Britons in the 1st century AD were supposed to be taller than the Gauls ("Celti"), whom the Romans reckoned as tall, then how does that accord with what Härke says he is finding among 6th or 7th century British remains?